CAN DRUG COURTS COMBAT SCOTS SCOURGE?

At the annual meeting of the Scottish Police Federation last month,
rank-and-file officers unanimously backed a call for a Royal Commission
into Scotland's drug plight. They were, by their own admission, struggling
to win the fight against drugs.

In the past year, the biggest indication of the authorities' belief that
rehabilitation, not punishment, should be at the centre of the fight
against narcotics in Scotland has been the introduction of specialist drug
courts in Glasgow, Glenrothes, Paisley and Greenock. It seems certain the
network will be expanded nationwide - but is it the right way forward, or
does it indicate a worrying "Americanisation" of the system?

Each week in Scotland, drug courts are held in specially designed,
non-adversarial courtrooms, offering coercive but supportive treatment
rather than imprisonment. For supporters of the scheme, the concept works
because it is the antithesis of the traditional court, where the
relationship between the perpetrator and the judge is punitive. Drug courts
are about human interaction and, according to backers, they provide
something rare - a system that is interested in who you are as well as what
you have done.

But drug courts are no soft option; those referred undergo a rigorous
programme of testing and treatment and can be sent back to court for
sentencing if they breach treatment orders by failing to attend
rehabilitation programmes or continuing to take drugs.

Similar schemes operate in Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland,
while 500 courts exist in the United States.

For many drug counsellors, Scotland has been forward-thinking in the fight
against addiction - especially compared to England and Wales, where there
has been a reluctance to commit to a similar scheme. A review of criminal
courts suggested that, despite demand in some areas, drug courts would be
expensive and there was "no compelling case" for their creation.

However, while most expert opinion favours drug courts in Scotland, there
are concerns. Roger Howard, chief executive of the research charity
Drugscope, says: "Drug courts are seen as a US import with a tough-love
background. They originated in the States as part of a therapeutic-justice
movement and their growth has influenced the creation of other specialist
courts. It may be culturally appropriate in the US but is it here?"

Justine Walker, national officer for Scotland's association of drug action
teams, says: "When we set up drug courts in Scotland, there was resistance.
I had sheriffs saying, 'What do you want us to do, hug the offenders'? The
perception was it would be like the US. We explained although it originated
in the US, it can work outside."

Alistair Ramsay, director of Scotland Against Drugs, backs drug courts:
"They have to be the way forward for addicts with real problems - not for
dealers but those who are really suffering. It is an excellent set-up and
suggesting it undermines traditions is foolhardy."